Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
So people who don't have cars should have to pay extra for those who do? Why are there tolls on roads and bridges? So that the people who use the service pay for it and those that do not are not burded with that tax liability. I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to whine when they raise taxes to pay for things YOU don't use. The implementation might be screwed, but the idea of paying only for the services you use is a great idea.
Except for the cry babies who whine about everything.
As a pedestrian, it is genuinely difficult for me to comprehend this level of laziness.
As a lazy driver, who would rather jump in his car than walk half a mile to the store, I AGREE with you 100%. This is utter bullshit. People get things shoved up their ass and are upset because it hurts a little.
It's just a giant money grab by the city under the guise of "smart" technology. It's smart alright - smart for the city.
And just how do you suggest the cities pay for road repairs or new traffic lights? I would be willing to bet money you would be the first one to complain when there are potholes in the streets., but you want other people to have to pay for it. The problem is NOT that the city, state or federal government asking people to pay for the services people use, but rather how the money is distributed. Create laws that say parking money MUST be used ONLY for the automobile infrastructure and park usage fees are used ONLY for park services. Don't bitch about having to pay for something. Damned freetrards!
I can't believe waterboarding takes so much time.
It doesn't, depending on the subject. However, one thing the Bush administrator continually ignored is that torture very rarely works to get reliable information. Usually you get what the victim *thinks* you want to hear. You then need to corroborate using other sources.
Define "certain information". I am really not trying to be insulting, but that is a very naive question. Each person would have to carry a 1000 page volume of the things not to talk about. You could TRY to generalized it by saying "no sensitive information", but just what is "sensitive information"? Is the fact your platoon leader is a jerk "sensitive information"? Well, it could be used as a means of gaining your trust when you "just happen" to get in a conversation with one of the workers fixing the shower. He was paid to gain your trust by using that fact. Sound far-fetched? It's standard practice and just one of many types of "social engineering".
There are flurry of tweets coming from a couple dozen people saying "I gotta sign off for today." Then 15 minutes later, someone on the outside of the compound sees a convoy of vehicles leave. The convoy arrives back several hours later and the tweets start up again. This same pattern happens over the course of a week. Even a bad intelligence analyst can say that it is likely that the tweets stop right before the unit goes out on patrol. What "sensitive information" did the tweets contain?
Military intelligence is rarely about getting the entire battle plan and quickly translating it for the generals. It is about piecing together little things. The big chunks are few and far between.
Then there is the human factor. People are not robots. People forget, people don't think that certain things are "sensitive". The complexities of this kind of thing are far greater than learning what to do in a fire fight. Further, when you come back from patrol after you friend had is leg blown off, you are not going to be thinking about whether your blog post is "sensitive". It might not carry any direct intelligence information, but if you are chatting with your wife about the horror you just experienced and describe the number and type of casualties, then the person who planned the attack knows how successful it was.
What about the picture on MySpace showing the guy and all of his buddies? The same photo is on six accounts. You now have the name of six people in the same unit. Useful military intelligence. Plus you have a picture of the inside of their compound including the entry area to the command post. Even more useful.
Experience has clearly demonstrated that allowing this kind of stuff is outright foolish.
Here's a theoretical tweet: "I have to leave at about 10PM to go on recon in Fadullah. Most of the guy in the platoon doing the patrol are okay, but Lt. Jones is incompetent."
So anyone following the tweet knows the time of the patrol, the strength and the name of one officer in the platoon. I was in army intelligence and getting just that much during an interrogation might take hours. To have someone simply give it to you is a dream come true. Some group picks up on this, knows that a platoon is doing recon and when, it is simple enough to set up an ambush, booby trap or whatever.
This is a smart move.
What else do you need?
I'm not sure I believe your story. Police can't just randomly detain citizens, and if they did there's recourse like suing the department for violating Supreme Court rulings.
Do you only watch Fox News? I honestly cannot believe someone said that.